Is that it hurts those countries whose leaders we punish.

I'm glad Gadafy is dead.
I'm glad Saddam is dead.
I'm glad bin Laden is dead.

But you have to think that it may weaken those countries when we step in and "take care of" the problems.

It doesn't give the rebels/revolutionaries/opposition any sense of ownership in handling the problems themselves.

I know it's a double-edged sword (or a Catch-22 scenario).

"If they were strong enough to handle it, they would handle it."

"But they would never become strong enough under XXX's control, so we HAVE to do something."

"But what are they giving up by allowing us to do something?"

It can make that country dependent upon others to solve their problems for them (Europe, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.).

10/20/2011 3:53:32 PM

I know Bachmann complained that we were "leading from behind" and said "As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind. We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong." But I have no doubt that the Libyan revolutionaries have buy in and a sense of ownership of their movement. They bled for it a lot more than we did.

I don't know how much that is true for the other wars that we've been mired down in for a long time where we've taken a more active role, but I don't think we have to worry about the Libyan's not having buy in. The other side of that is since its not our military on the ground there, we have less say in making sure things turn out the way we would want them to, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

10/20/2011 4:08:34 PM

You shouldn't include Bin Laden on that list. The only things weakened by his death were Al Qaeda and the self-respect of the Pakistani military.

He wasn't a country leader.

Iraq was unquestionably weakened for a time, but they're bouncing back. Libya remains to be seen, but you can hardly blame the US exclusively on that one.

10/20/2011 5:28:57 PM

Don't forget Castro.

We're about to hill him with old age. If we haven't already done it secretly.

10/20/2011 5:39:26 PM

I think what often happens is that we support the rebels, allowing them to overthrow a government that they would not have been able to overthrow otherwise, and then the new rebel leadership ends up being worse than whoever was in power before.

In nearly all areas that we intervene, possibly trying to do the right thing (but probably not), there are unintended consequences, and sometimes that means a lot of people die needlessly.

Luckily, there are things we can do that have positive consequences, like maintaining honest trade, not engaging in currency exchange manipulation.

The real question we have to ask is not "who will help these countries become free," but "who will make this country free?" Hint: it's not any of the people in power right now.

10/20/2011 5:55:21 PM

I agree that brown people are just too savage to self-govern, and if they are living under a totalitarian dictator who keeps them under tight control it is probably for the better. Can't have gorillas running the zoo, after all!

10/21/2011 11:59:58 AM

Quote :

"It can make that country dependent upon others to solve their problems for them (Europe, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.)."

Yes I'm sure some French folks were saying the exact same thing back when http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War



[Edited on October 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2011 12:20:16 PM

Quote :

"I know Bachmann complained that we were "leading from behind" and said "As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind. We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong." But I have no doubt that the Libyan revolutionaries have buy in and a sense of ownership of their movement. They bled for it a lot more than we did."

I'd argue Obama's handling of Libya is one of the best examples of leadership I've seen out of him. I think he handled this exactly the right way.

10/21/2011 12:36:19 PM

^

maybe not EXACTLY but for somebody who is
(1) no friend of Obama
(2) eager to call out US foreign atrocities,

i don't see much wrong with Libya

[Edited on October 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/21/2011 12:49:50 PM

Also

Quote :

" But you have to think that it may weaken those countries when we step in and "take care of" the problems. "

"Weaken" them? Who is "them"? The people currently being oppressed? This is like telling the fire department to go back to the station because spraying all the water on a burning house might drown the people trapped inside.

10/21/2011 1:18:20 PM

^^

fair enough-- replace exactly with "way better than I would have thought."

10/21/2011 1:33:57 PM

^iraq and afghanistan and guantanamo on the other hand....

10/21/2011 1:51:40 PM

colossal failures by both the bush and obama admins. There were never any reasons, even humanitarian to ever invade either.

Guantanamo still hasn't been shut down as promised.

just saw that all US troops to be out of iraq by the end of the year. we'll see if it happens.

10/21/2011 2:02:05 PM

A few of these moves that have occurred during the Obama Whitehouse have been good moves. Another move that was a very good one was abandoning the out-dated idea of building missile farms in Poland, which Bush wanted to do, and investing more in mobile Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD). Now, how much we attribute these ideas to Obama, I'm not certain. I think his major success here isn't in the decisions he made, but in his allowing the military commanders who are indoctrinated into these fields make the decisions and he simply gives his John Handcock. That's what happened with the BMD issue and the DoD has been mentioning for 5+ years that the best way to handle a country like Lybia with an "organized" government and a lot of assets is to enable the civil unrest, not necessarily to get directly involved.

Hell, we've been doing that for decades. Bay of Pigs was a failed attempt at the same thing. Still, it was a good decision and Obama didn't "get in the way" of a good idea moving forward. That is actually deserving of some congratulations.

10/21/2011 3:09:57 PM

^^ I think there was good reason to invade Afghanistan, but certainly not Iraq.

Guantanamo was/is a clusterfuck, but Obama's learned it's better to just kill these people with a drone than it is to capture them.

[Edited on October 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : *]

10/21/2011 3:18:39 PM

If we can assassinate world leaders, they can assassinate ours. Fair is fair, I say.

10/21/2011 3:25:13 PM

Quote :

"I agree that brown people are just too savage to self-govern, and if they are living under a totalitarian dictator who keeps them under tight control it is probably for the better. Can't have gorillas running the zoo, after all!"

As hideous as that thought is (I don't whether the poster was being serious or not, but doesn't matter), it is true.

I don't know if I agree or not with the 2nd part of the argument, that they are better under a dictator. Definitely agree with the "too savage to self-govern".

I would say as long as people are not actively being oppressed by the dictator, then that is definitely better than "democracy" in a brown-people country (or Africa for that matter). Thing is, if the dictator is able to keep a lid on the racial/ethnic/religious differences of his subjects without actively oppressing any of the groups, that is far better. With the dictator gone, it opens the door to oppression based on religion, ethnicity, tribes, etc.

Unfortunately, that's reality.

10/21/2011 3:32:27 PM

Obama's policy towards the capture/killing of foreign leaders is literally identical to Bush's. There is a prefectly logical explanation for this: when Obama came to office, he fired every one of Bush's staff... except Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense. The American drone attack on the convoy is something we've done ever since Afghanistan and Iraq. Remember that prior to the "Shock and Awe" in 2003, there was a single missile attack. The media was thrown off because they thoughts the first thing they would see was a barrage of missile fire. Turns out the area commander had authorized an Avenger to go in there and launch one Hellfire at a convoy.

That's why I hate people bringing up Pres. Obama after the Bin Laden (US task) and Gadafy (non-US task) news broke... Obama isn't doing anything that the previous administration didn't. Same operating procedures and same use of unmanned systems.

10/21/2011 3:35:10 PM

I agree with your analysis, and I think that at one point, Obama was opposed to the wars. However, lacking any principle or backbone, he bent to the will of those in charge of the war effort once in office, resulting in mostly the same neoconservative policy that has been in place.

10/21/2011 4:21:53 PM

What else could he have done? Immediately stop the wars and remove all troops from both areas?

What's the result of that happening?

10/22/2011 10:55:39 AM

I think that's the point, kdogg. There is a reality gap between rhetoric on a campaign trail and the realities of a situation and it is no more evident than when you compare "what else Obama could have done". If you have a bunch of rhetoric but don't actually have the knowledge base to do anything else, then your only course of action is to "stay the course" (a phrase that many on the left criticize the right for).

What Obama did was "stay the course" by not firing ANY of the previous administration's defense officials when much of what he ran on was opposition to the former administration's defense policies. If I was a Democrat, I would be livid with Obama's failure to come through on any of his policies simply because of the stark difference between who he was on the campaign trail and what his actions show he is capable of doing in office, as it applies to defense.

Before anyone pull the UNC-style "everyone does it" to defend the difference between Nov 1st candidates and Nov 2nd presidents, recall that Clinton actually did work towards things he promised on the campaign trail.

10/24/2011 9:23:01 AM

^ umm... Looks like we are pulling out of Iraq, and have been drawing down troops for a while. Thats what Obama promised. McCain is saying this is a bad idea too.

Apparently you are the one with the reality gap.

and I'm not sure how you can base the claim that nothing is different under Obama on Gates still being in charge. Have you not been paying any attention to the reports of internal deliberations about this? Are you really naive to think that, at the least, Hillary would just be sitting back twiddling her thumbs letting gates run amok? Lol...

10/24/2011 9:49:58 AM

Secretary Gates' initiatives have been essentially the same since the successful "surge" in Iraq. The policy that the Obama administration attempted to put together was a similar "surge" in Afghanistan. That has been the only major administration-born policy developed as it applies to Iraq and Afghanistan. The idea that we would pull out of Iraq in year 4 of Obama's presidency isn't exactly what he ran on and I think you would be fooling yourself to assume that would have been the previous administration's wishes either.

By the way, I'm not the one who mentioned Hillary, McCain, or anyone else besides Obama. I don't care who "else" is running or what their ideals are/were. Obama ran on a particular agenda and that agenda was compromised when he ran on how upset he was at current DoD policies, then fired everyone from the previous administration except the Secretary of Defense. It has nothing to do with Bush's failed foreign policy or anything McCain said he would do or with what we think Hillary might have done. Obama shat the bed all on his own.

10/24/2011 10:19:24 AM

I like how Obama complained about dubya's policies, and then followed almost all of them, right down to leaving iraq when dubya said we should leave. lol


also:

Quote :

"GADAFY"

10/24/2011 10:12:24 PM

^Just in case you were missing it, 'Gadafy' is what a lot of people, radio and otherwise, are calling Gahdafi.

10/25/2011 10:18:18 AM

NEWS FLASH TO PEOPLE ARGUING ABOUT THE SPELLING OF QADDAFI:

ENGLISH IS NOT A PHONETIC LANGUAGE

How it [should be] written in English: Mu?ammar al-Qa??afi (if garbled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi )

How it is pronounced: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Ar-Muammar_al-Qaddafi.ogg

10/25/2011 10:27:01 AM

Quote :

"I like how Obama complained about dubya's policies, and then followed almost all of them, right down to leaving iraq when dubya said we should leave. lol"

Actually it was the Iraqi government who set that deadline, to Bush's chagrin.

10/25/2011 1:39:27 PM

^And it was the Iraqi government that is forcing the pull-out. Sounds like dubya and 'bamer have yet another thing in common.

10/25/2011 1:50:39 PM